Fuck'em. Let them go bust. In fact, it is your duty as a human being to do whatever you can to help them go bankrupt faster, so the world is rid of their rotten business model.
When making an argument, particularly one as controversial as this, it is important to know who you're siding with. And sadly, in this case, you're siding with the bad guys.
As far as I was aware, becoming a member of the PRS was not mandatory, nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
You're right. I meant "on the member artists'" behalf; should have been clearer. But my point, that Waterman has ceded the ability to negotiate with YouTube, still stands.
> nor is the PRS required to license its music to Google. If the PRS is not satisfied with the deal Google is offering, then they have the option to walk away.
Look, I think you do have a point here, but you are oversimplifying somewhat. What you're not taking into account is that if the PRS orders YouTube to take down the videos, the content will appear anyways as so-called "user-generated content" (although it quite obviously doesn't merit that title) -- the onus is then on content creators to enforce it's IP rights. Should the PRS then push for all of YouTube to shut down and risk massive PR damage, not to mention hurting all the innocent bona fide UGC creators? Should it be forced to incur the costs of policing the content on YouTube, when YouTube itself reaps all the rewards in terms of advertisements? Or should the onus on policing go to the government, or YouTube itself? All of these issues would need to be addressed were the PRS to simply walk away from a deal. Needless to say, each and every one opens up a horrendous can of worms. So while it's true that the PRS has "the option to walk away", it amounts to the option of getting murdered through a bullet to the head or a slit to the throat ;)
Google is a figurehead of cheap bandwidth and storage, but ultimately the problems the PRS faces are global trends. Attacking Google is like attacking the snowflakes before an ice age. It's not fair on the snowflakes, and won't do the members of the PRS any good in the long term. Either they adapt to a more hostile climate, or be crushed under the glacier of the information age.
The PRS negotiated the agreement with Google at a rate close to .022p per play (note: pence, not pounds!), which is well below the legally mandated minimum (I believe this legal minimum was introduced after the agreement with Google) for radio stations and other users of 0.22p per-play. Google, so far, has been getting an excellent deal compared to other redistributors of music. That they can't manage to eek a profit out of their business model is not PRS For Music's fault.
I applaud Waterman's looking out for the interests of musicians and songwriters -- considering how much mullah he already has, it's quite clear that he's not doing this out of self-interest. He's interested in protecting the community of musicians and songwriters. And rightly so, in my opinion: they are being fleeced.